Men do a terrible job in ruling our world. So it is about time we allow women to rule instead and see if they can do a better job.

Men have ruled our world for all of recorded history, which has been a story of continuous wars, genocide, injustice, oppression and poverty. History demonstrates time and time again, that men do a terrible job in ruling our world.
We can find the reasons why in the instincts of male animals. Every spring, animals like stags, bulls and rams will fight each other for dominance and access to females. Men likewise have similar instincts but they fight with far more deadly weapons like spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, aircraft, bombs and rockets. In the 20th century men came close to committing global suicide through nuclear warfare in the cold war between the USSR and NATO.
Men have also failed to create a fair and equal society. Again, this is because of the masculine competitive instinct. An alpha stag has no intention of sharing any of his harem with any other stag. We see exactly the same attitude in any society ruled by men, with a big gap between rich and poor.
So would Women do a better job? As we see with all female animals, they have a powerful maternal instinct. Without this powerful instinct to nurture their young most mammals and birds on this planet, would go extinct. Likewise, women are natural carers and most will devote their lives caring for children, as well as the sick, disabled, elderly and animals. If we had true matriarchal governments they would want to nurture and care for the people they rule.
It is true that nowadays, most female politicians like Margaret Thatcher show little compassion for others. But when women join patriarchal political parties they have to act and behave like men to gain respect and promotion. So in this system only the most ruthless and aggressive women obtain any position of power. This is why we need to have true matriarchal political parties made up only of women. So women can be themselves and act and behave like nurturing and caring women. And so nurture the countries they rule.

Comment deleted

Apr 13 2013:
Women are not able to go out and conquer the world by force, like men have done. The only way women can get into power is through democratic means. So it means they have to be voted into power through the will of the people.

Apr 12 2013:
I would say we will see more women in political office as time goes by, and we will also see more influence of women on political parties that are a mix of both sexes. I believe an all-women's party is a bad idea as both sexes have their strengths and a party should draw on both sexes' strengths.

Apr 12 2013:
I agree Greg.......we are seeing more women in political office, and I do not agree that an all-woman political party is a good idea. We already seperate the sexes in many ways.... it's time to come together, and, as you insightfully say....draw on the strengths of both men and women. If we are a world of men and women, then it seems reasonable and beneficial that both men and women share the responsibilities:>)

Apr 13 2013:
Sharing is what women do, but if we look at our history, we don't find men doing this. Men in any position of power do not share power or wealth with anyone else. In our patriarchal world there is a big gap between the rich and poor, the powerful and powerless and that is the result of male rule. When men and women come together, in a political party, the men will try to grab power for themselves and women have to either be as ruthless and devious as men or lose out. So we end up with only very ruthless and aggressive women in politics. If we want caring and sharing people ruling our world, the only way to do it, is through matriarchal political parties.

Apr 13 2013:
William,
I believe sharing is considered a learned behavior, encouraged (or not) with social reinforcement. Girls/women are generally taught and encouraged to share, while boys/men are encouraged and taught to be more aggressive and assertive.

There's a good book (in my perception) by Pat Heim, Ph.D, called "Hardball for Women"...winning at the game of business. I heard her speak at a conference years ago, and I really like her perspective, which is delivered with humor. She makes a very good point that from the very beginning of a child's life in the hospital, they are wrapped in a blue blanket or a pink blanket, and from that day on, are treated and taught differently!

Women CAN learn to be more aggressive and assertive, and we/they ARE learning that, with the increased number of women in politics and business.

Men CAN also learn to share, and these behaviors and practices probably are more effective in the opposite sexes if the encouragement is started at a younger age. For a long time, for example, girls were discouraged from pursueing math and science. Now, we are starting to encourage that in young girls.....there's hope:>)

I truly believe that since we are a group of men AND women sharing this earth, it would be good for all of us to compromise, adjust, and learn more ways to balance leadership roles....all together:>)

Apr 12 2013:
I disagree.
I'm also furious, any men who talks that way about women get "crucified" for being sexist and chauvinist.
Women have the same rights as men, and more. The laws against women discrimination are vast, extended and strict. Women are the majority of the population, and if they want to lead all tey need to do is convince the majority of people, that they'll do a better job.

Apr 13 2013:
The laws against female discrimination are very very recent in our history and only apply to Westernised countries, and a lot of them are not properly enforced. Men have been oppressing women for thousands of years, and this has affected the way they think. Most women seem to have what Malcolm X called "a slave mentality", because of this oppression. This is why only a minority of women are willing to challenge the patriarchal society we live in.

Apr 12 2013:
It's not who rules, but what's behind each rule. Men, women, that doesn't matter. What matters is the aim of each rule and what are the threats to each rule. Women can order war just like the cowardly men that do such, while they stay out of harms way. Intent is the magic or mischief in all language. If the president of each nation had to fight hand to hand combat, leading the way, only insane rulers would go to war.

Comment deleted

Apr 18 2013:
I agree that women through history have been subjected to patriarchal propaganda to make them feel powerless. The point is that men do this to each other all the time. You can see this clearly in sport where sportsmen competing against each other will try to undermine each other's confidence by trading insults with each other. So when men also insult and put down women, they are simply playing power games with them. In these power games any 'weakness' of the opponent is exploited, so if a women has a concerned about being too fat, the man will then tell her exactly what she doesn't want to hear, to undermine her confidence in herself.

In spite of what some feminist say, men and women are very different to each other. So they when women enter the competitive world of patriarchal politics or business they end up having to act differently to their natural behaviour. Because the natural caring and nurturing instincts of women are exploited by men and are condemned by men as a 'weakness'. And in the dog eat dog patriarchal world, perhaps it is. But if women have their own matriarchal political party, and they show to the voters that they are far more caring and loving people than any patriarchal political party then that 'weakness' then becomes a strength. Because most voters will prefer to be ruled by caring people, instead of ruthless, uncaring macho men.

So it is about women taking pride in their nurturing and maternal nature and saying to the world, ;we are better people because of this. And then point out that the world is ruled by uncaring and exploitive men and this is why the world is ruled so badly. And so women can make a strong case to the people, why they would be better rulers of the world than men.

Apr 15 2013:
I agree Lucas that there is no reason why women couldn't rule the world and it would be a lot better organized. Not sure about this idea of women ruling the world already. Women have influence but it is men who still have the power and that is why the world is so badly ruled. We do need true matriarchal governments if we are to fix many of the world's problems, as it is clear that men are incapable of doing this.

Apr 15 2013:
There is no real reason why or why not women couldn't rule the world. In cavemen years who knows, maybe the women ruled over the men to fetch the food for the family and just to be able to survive. Even today women, in a way, already rule the world because without women keeping the men in place of picking up children from a sport or from school, Encouraging the man to find a job. Many countries around the world may be better or more organized if women were to rule over men.

Apr 15 2013:
Thanks for this debate. I was looking forward to something like this.

1. "The pen is mightier than the sword"

2. It is not only men who partake in competition but also women. It is is in our bloods to be greedy and selfish, and so having a women leader would not necessarily make things better. Why do women do up their hair, face and body? To stand out from the other women? Is this not competition?

And who said that competition isn't healthy. To quote the great Adam Smith, "In competition, individual ambition serves the common good". Look at the technology sector. Due to the vast amount of competition, companies such as Apple and Samsung have to keep on innovating in order to stay alive. This provides us with goods which we would never have seen if it were not for competition.

3. When you say a "matriarchal government" who will care and nurture do you basically mean more government? “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results” (Milton Friedman). It will be difficult to look after all the citizens. By helping some people, other will be at a loss (a bit like a zero sum game). Why not just have fewer rules and regulations allowing people to live their lives without having the government breathing down their neck?

Apr 15 2013:
I agree women are competitive, but I don't think they are so competitive they want to start a war or conquer other countries. In the whole of history we do not have a great Amazon army of women trying to conquer the world, like the armies of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte or Adolf Hitler. Men have been so competitive that in the Cold war between the NATO and USSR male leaders come close to committing global suicide through nuclear war.

Also throughout history we see in most countries a big gap between rich and poor. In is commonplace to see in patriarchal countries a extremely wealthy ruling elite, while the common people are living in poverty or even starving to death. Yes, competition is great but when taken to the extreme like what male rulers tend to do, it can be extremely destructive.

Yes, we need competition but it has to be moderated and not taken to any extreme. Men have shown throughout history that they cannot do this as we still have wars and societies where we have a big gap between rich and poor. Women are more moderate in their behaviour. They are far less likely to bomb cities and forget there are actual people living in them. Or impose economic policies that condemn people to poverty.

We must remember that these deregulation ideas like you got with President Regan, come directly from Social Darwinism, which is what Hitler advocated. The policies of the "survival of the fittest" justify war and poverty as it is claimed that those who die in poverty and war are 'unfit' and so deserve to die. Individual women like Margaret Thatcher or Ayn Rand might agree with this. But the vast majority of women would find it impossible, and know that people who suffer in wars or poverty are real people like themselves.

So any Matriarchal government will be far less extreme than many patriarchal governments.

Apr 14 2013:
I just think the the main reason for this is patriarchal propaganda that claims that women are 'weak' because they are more caring and loving people than men. I think many women buy into this and try to be 'strong' by learning to be aggressive and ruthless. Although individual women can do this, like Margaret Thatcher, most women are not able to do it. When women try to act and behave like men they will always be at a disadvantage as aggression and ruthlessness is more natural for men, than for women.

Women throw away a big advantage by denying their true nature. Men do a terrible job in ruling our world because of their aggression and violence. So it would make sense if women were to clearly state. "We can do a far better job in ruling the world than you bunch of idiots." Then they can point out they are far more caring and loving people than men. And because of this, they would be far, far better rulers of our world. We need to be clear about this. Men are doing a terrible job in ruling our world and women need to be encouraged to take over. At present the voting public only have the choice of different patriarchal political parties and have to choose between which one will do least damage. But if the public had the choice of voting for a matriarchal political party of caring and nurturing women, then they would have a real choice of a better life for us all.

Apr 14 2013:
Yes, women do have an influence, I am sure without the influence of women men would have destroyed themselves long ago in violent wars with each other. The point is that we know men are very violent and aggressive so it is not a good idea to have clowns like this rule our world. We need to be ruled by more sensible people who are more loving and caring of others and the only way we can do this is to allow women to rule our world.

Apr 13 2013:
Humanity is like a body; whatever has been done or is being done by men, women do have influence and hence a major contribution.
Whoever has been intoxicated or has taken a pill will understand this. A small bottle of gin/whiskey, or a small pill, doesnt seem like much; but the impact does the talking.

Only a foolish man would underestimate the power and influence of a woman. Men would be good leaders if they are influenced by a good mother or a good wife.

PS: thumbs up to Ridley Scott and the production team of the TV show 'The Good Wife'

Apr 13 2013:
Margaret Thatcher's name always come up in these conversations. She is one of the reasons I advocate a all female political party. The only way a woman can become leader of a patriarchal party is to act and behave like a man. Which is what Margaret Thatcher ended up doing. The only way we can have caring and nurturing women in positions of power, is through a matriarchal political party with no men in it.

Apr 13 2013:
The only way we can find out for sure, is to have a genuine matriarchal government in power and then we can judge whether women are better rulers than men. I don't think we have a lot to lose by trying this.

Apr 13 2013:
I would agree except for the terrible job women do in choosing whom to have children with. If women could stop breeeding with total jerks then I think women would have a fairly perfect resume.

Apr 13 2013:
Colleen, In the nurture V nature debate is is hard to know what is what. The truth of the matter is that the sexes are effected by both. It is not all nature and it is not all nurture. Also we are all different so we can have very feminine men and very masculine men. We can only look at men's and women's behaviour as a whole. Men have ruled our world for the whole of recorded history because they are far more aggressive, competitive and violent than women. Yes individual women can be as aggressive and violent as men but most women are not.

The problem is that men make terrible rulers of our world, Men's aggression, competitiveness and violence makes them more likely to be rulers but makes them very bad rulers when they get into any position of power. The irony is that the fact that women are less competitive and violent than men, would make them better and more caring rulers. So they is why I am advocating a matriarchal political party where they can be voted into power and we can have a government of caring and nurturing people in power.

Apr 13 2013:
William,
I do not perceive nurture V nature......I perceive nurture AND nature. I agree with you that we are all influenced by BOTH, and we are all different in many respects. We CAN, in my perception, look at PEOPLE, who have many of the same qualities. Some of these qualities, characteristics and behaviors are encouraged for boys/men, and some are encouraged for girls/women. When we perceive ourselves and others as people, we may be able to let go of some of that which seperates us.

It feels like you have already made up your mind on this topic, so there is not much else to say, except good luck with your quest:>)

Apr 13 2013:
Hi William!
I was wondering. How about trying it together? Men and Women? How about deconstructing the male/female stereotypes and dividing the responsibility equally?
I would have been happy to agree to your comparison of human beings with other animals. While there is biological similarities, no animal has societies, culture, values, morality, ethics, progress.

Apr 13 2013:
When you say de-constructing gender stereotypes you are assuming that their is no difference between men and women. I personally don't believe this. Men and women are very different, both physically and mentally. The main reason for this is that women give birth to children and men don't. Human beings are animals, like all female animals women have a powerful maternal instinct. This is why most women want to give birth to children and care for them until they are adults. And also it is this powerful maternal instinct that would make women far better rulers of our world, than men. If we seriously want to solve problems like war and poverty, we need women ruling our world. Men have shown throughout history they are incapable of solving these problems so why do we continue to elect them into power?

Apr 13 2013:
In five thousand years of patriarchal rule men have totally failed to create an equal society. They tried to do this in the French revolution and later on through communism and socialism and they still couldn't achieve it. It is men's competitive instincts that get in the way of creating any sort of equality. Because competitive people are basically selfish people who only want power and wealth for themselves. If we want a truly equal society then people have to elect matriarchal governments. It is only a completely female government who can bring about a equal society.

Apr 13 2013:
I agree to some extent but I think not much will change as these womwn will have the pressure to act powerfull and be like how men have for centuries defined the qualities a leader should have. What should change is that equality should first be established and with that new ways of thinking, new definitions of what makes a great leader will emerge. AND by equality I mean for both women and men. Women should see men as their equal and not expect them to pay on a date or basically the little things they won't admitt to. Same thing with men they shouldn't look down on women because of their periods etc. and well all the other little things. Equality is key here! But personaly I think women would do a better job as long as they aren't influenced by *men* ideas they would do great.

Apr 13 2013:
Men have a really bad record as far as equality is concerned. Men have failed to create an equal society even when they set out to do this with communism. So what gives you the idea they can suddenly do it now? If we have an government of the same number of men and women. The men would compete strongly against the women for power. As the result only very ruthless and competitive women will get anywhere in this system. It will still remain a patriarchal government with some women within it. Women need to be able to form their own matriarchal political parties, if we are to benefit from the caring and nurturing aspect of women in government.

Apr 14 2013:
I don't think it may be possible now as more women may be educated but its still mostly in the ways of thinking of males. But I think that if more women were more independent in a way that the influence of men won't affect them so much and in that way have new ideas on most things and hey even possibly find the meaning of life! But firstly women need to gain more confidence and follow their own ideas and not those implied by men.

Apr 14 2013:
I would agree with you that women need a lot more confidence in themselves. And I can understand you being suspicious of any idea coming from a man. But many men are as fed up with the patriarchal society we live in, as what women are. Many men do not like playing the macho role that patriarchy forces onto them. So if women did form their own matriarchal political parties, they would receive a lot of support from many men.

Apr 13 2013:
I would agree wth some of the other respondents that it has already been done with no greater results. If that's true, then gender-defined leadership would not be the cure of society's ills. In my opinion, we must evolve our thinking and means of assessment across the whole of humanity for true harmonious living for us all.

Apr 13 2013:
Evolving our thinking could take another few thousand or more years. Whereas Matriarchal governments are possible within this century. It is strange how people will clutch at any solution, except matriarchy.

Apr 13 2013:
Wow. Ok. Maybe I wasnt clear. 'Matriarchy' is not new. There have been ruling queens, tribal preistesses, heads of state, and other great leadership roles heald by women throughout history. I merely stated that your 'idea' has been done before and we have their results. They were mostly decimated and it didnt seem to catch on and societies keep accepting mostly male leadership. Why is that? Is it because men have just overpowered female leaders and have taken controll? Or have the societies 'backed' male leadership more often? And why is that? I think we would find that it's not the gender of the leadership that results in our progress - that the solution lies elsewhere - and therefore 'forced' matriarchal leadership would have no effect on our rate of progress. And I disagree whole-heartedley that it would take 'a thousand years' to evolve our thinking. I've seen more progress in our regard for our fellow humans in my lifetime than in all of recorded history.

Apr 13 2013:
A female head of a patriarchal government is not a matriarchy. A matriarchy is a government where all of it or most of it are women. As for 'force' men throughout history have forced their way into government through conquest, violent revolution and political murder but this is not an option for matriarchy. The only way we can have a matriarchal government is through democracy, where they are elected into power. And the only way they can say in power is to prove to the people, they are better leaders than any patriarchal political party.

Apr 13 2013:
Interesting, and thnx for continuing the conversation. I would agree with your observation of the effectiveness of democracy. Why then do you think we still have patriarchal rule with so many talented women throughout herstory (pun intended) in democratic societies?

Apr 13 2013:
Well we have tried everything, monarchy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, fascism and even democracy. And all have failed to solve problem like conflict, war and poverty. So why can't we try matriarchy? What have we got to lose?

Apr 13 2013:
Yes, women do have some influence in trying to tame men, but in politics and business it is men who make nearly all the decisions. Influence is not the same as direct power. We need more and more women in positions of power, if we are to solve problems like war and poverty. Because as the whole of history proves, men are incapable of solving these problems.

Apr 13 2013:
Think about those movies in anthropology. Think about I Claudius by Graves. Who rules the World? Are you really sure? Objectively, who had a greater role in your develpment? Mom or Dad. I remember reading about when the Tsar Joseph Stalin was asked "what do you do?" by his mother. Objectively, one can argue that Mankind is a matriarchy. Look this varies by degrees and situations. I don't know about other countries, but go to a political convention. I believe that this is oversimple. Whether we are talking about cattle or Octavian and Actavia, we have male and female alphas, etc. in nature. Reread the end of Genesis. Think about Lea and Rachael. Think about tghe rivalries between the brothers. Earlier in that book Rebecca decided who would get her husband's blessing.

Apr 13 2013:
People are saying that a all female political party is a bad idea but not really saying why. We have accepted all male political parties for hundreds of years so what is wrong with now accepting all female political parties? Women are very different to men and a all female party will allow women to be who they really are and not follow the masculine pattern in politics.

Apr 12 2013:
The evidence I present of women being better rulers than men, is that men are far more violent than women. More than 99% of all violence committed in our world is done by men. It is men who fight in wars, commit genocide and commit far more violent crime, than women. So it means that while men continue to rule our world we will always have conflict and wars. If we want to live in a world without wars and violence then we need women to rule it. This is very important today when we have nuclear weapons. North Korea is showing us what a mad male rulers can do, if he has nuclear warheads and powerful rockets. With the spread of nuclear weapons they will get in the hands of more despotic male dictators. So the people need to know, that they would be better off if they were ruled by women.

Apr 12 2013:
Question from the SAT:
There is an island with two tribes, each tribe had people of two kinds - those who crack the egg from the flat end, and those who crack the egg from the pointy end. from the begining of time only those who cracke the egg from the flat end ruled their tribe. From time to time there was war between the two tribes. what do you infer on the diffrence between those who cracke the egg from the pointy side and those who crack it from the flat side?

Apr 12 2013:
What psychological evidence can you provide to defend your position, rather than mere hearsay of political ideology (which at this point in time have openly imbedded corrupt systems into the infrastructure of government)?

I do not mean this in any offensive way, I actually agree, but am wondering if you have any cognitive proof which would assert women as being a better leader than men. I have read case-studies where women are better language teachers, but not leaders or politicians. So, please, any data, share.

Apr 12 2013:
The problem is with having a political party with both sexes is that men are generally far more aggressive and competitive than women. So women either have to learn to be as aggressive as men, or lose out in the top jobs within the party. So we end up with a political party not much different to what we have in recent times. The only way we can have caring and nurturing women in positions of power, is to have a all female political party.

TED Conversations Archives

We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot.

Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience.